HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Al Gore could unite busin...

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:41 AM

Al Gore could unite business & progressive Democrats in 2020.

I just watched the trailer for the sequel to AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH.

Al Gore was part of the DLC team, but has progressive credibility because of his work on climate change.

Bernie or someone like him could win, but the business wing of the party would fight tooth and nail to keep them from reaching the nomination.

Hillary would have the unqualified support of the business wing, but her ties to Wall Street and the neocons and their cruel, destructive foreign policy would mean progressives might vote for her, but not have an infectious enthusiasm that gets people to the polls who otherwise wouldn't go.

Al Gore is the only candidate with credibility in both wings of the party.

Of course whether someone like him or further left gets the nomination depends of the Democratic Party leadership realizing they ain't going to win over the Republican base, or to the extent that they do, it won't be by aping Republican policies.

130 replies, 11712 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 130 replies Author Time Post
Reply Al Gore could unite business & progressive Democrats in 2020. (Original post)
yurbud Apr 2017 OP
randome Apr 2017 #1
Freddie Apr 2017 #2
randome Apr 2017 #17
lapucelle Apr 2017 #28
randome Apr 2017 #39
yurbud Apr 2017 #11
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #15
yurbud Apr 2017 #125
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #126
Skittles Apr 2017 #122
yurbud Apr 2017 #129
delisen Apr 2017 #23
randome Apr 2017 #41
delisen Apr 2017 #51
lapucelle Apr 2017 #53
delisen Apr 2017 #54
pnwmom Apr 2017 #108
BannonsLiver Apr 2017 #56
randome Apr 2017 #81
William769 Apr 2017 #77
randome Apr 2017 #80
TrollBuster9090 Apr 2017 #128
delisen Apr 2017 #3
yurbud Apr 2017 #12
oasis Apr 2017 #20
yurbud Apr 2017 #61
oasis Apr 2017 #65
delisen Apr 2017 #97
delisen Apr 2017 #31
lunamagica Apr 2017 #34
brush Apr 2017 #45
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #62
malchickiwick Apr 2017 #48
delisen Apr 2017 #52
yurbud Apr 2017 #68
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #76
yurbud Apr 2017 #111
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #112
yurbud Apr 2017 #114
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #116
yurbud Apr 2017 #115
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #117
yurbud Apr 2017 #118
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #119
grantcart Apr 2017 #74
yurbud Apr 2017 #95
phleshdef Apr 2017 #92
pnwmom Apr 2017 #109
phleshdef Apr 2017 #91
athena Apr 2017 #120
phleshdef Apr 2017 #121
athena Apr 2017 #123
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2017 #4
MoonRiver Apr 2017 #5
caroldansen Apr 2017 #6
GulfCoast66 Apr 2017 #96
bluedigger Apr 2017 #7
lapucelle Apr 2017 #57
jehop61 Apr 2017 #8
treestar Apr 2017 #10
delisen Apr 2017 #24
yurbud Apr 2017 #35
kcr Apr 2017 #110
lpbk2713 Apr 2017 #9
DK504 Apr 2017 #18
delisen Apr 2017 #26
nini Apr 2017 #13
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2017 #22
delisen Apr 2017 #49
lapucelle Apr 2017 #55
JHan Apr 2017 #105
delisen Apr 2017 #27
R B Garr Apr 2017 #30
JHan Apr 2017 #63
yurbud Apr 2017 #87
nini Apr 2017 #90
yurbud Apr 2017 #94
nini Apr 2017 #100
yurbud Apr 2017 #88
Skittles Apr 2017 #124
NCTraveler Apr 2017 #14
brooklynite Apr 2017 #16
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2017 #21
R B Garr Apr 2017 #25
R B Garr Apr 2017 #19
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #29
delisen Apr 2017 #37
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #40
lapucelle Apr 2017 #58
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #75
lapucelle Apr 2017 #89
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2017 #93
lapucelle Apr 2017 #98
Binkie The Clown Apr 2017 #32
delisen Apr 2017 #44
yurbud Apr 2017 #79
JHan Apr 2017 #107
lapucelle Apr 2017 #33
delisen Apr 2017 #42
lapucelle Apr 2017 #46
yurbud Apr 2017 #50
JHan Apr 2017 #64
IphengeniaBlumgarten Apr 2017 #36
DemocratSinceBirth Apr 2017 #38
ZX86 Apr 2017 #43
yurbud Apr 2017 #86
brush Apr 2017 #47
Glitterati Apr 2017 #59
Demsrule86 Apr 2017 #60
Buckeye_Democrat Apr 2017 #66
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2017 #67
Buckeye_Democrat Apr 2017 #69
R B Garr Apr 2017 #70
Thrill Apr 2017 #71
davsand Apr 2017 #72
Voltaire2 Apr 2017 #73
jg10003 Apr 2017 #78
ismnotwasm Apr 2017 #82
Gothmog Apr 2017 #83
JI7 Apr 2017 #84
cheapdate Apr 2017 #106
alarimer Apr 2017 #85
mvd Apr 2017 #99
nycbos Apr 2017 #101
Lisa0825 Apr 2017 #102
doc03 Apr 2017 #103
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #104
TNLib Apr 2017 #113
TrollBuster9090 Apr 2017 #127
WinkyDink Apr 2017 #130

Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:44 AM

1. NO! NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!

 

No more retreads!

It's unfair that Gore lost! It's unfair that Clinton lost! MOVE ON!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:47 AM

2. Totally agree

A fresh face, someone younger. Or Al Franken, who isn't "young" but wonderful anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Freddie (Reply #2)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:15 AM

17. I keep discounting the septuagenarians but yes, there are exceptions to that 'rule'.

 

Franken is one of them. So would be Warren. Both DEMOCRATS, I might add!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #17)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:40 AM

28. Al Franken is 65. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #28)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:04 PM

39. Close enough!

 

Technicalities...grumble...this place sucks...isn't fair...grumble...mutter...bah!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:02 AM

11. of "retreads" I'd take Gore over Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:09 AM

15. Where does your comment here even come from? Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 02:53 AM

125. reply to #1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #125)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:21 AM

126. No, not without a stretch. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 07:20 PM

122. WE GET IT, YOU HATE CLINTON

MOVE THE FUCK ON

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #122)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 11:43 AM

129. I do not "hate" her. I vote for policies and I'm looking for common ground

corporate Democrats seem to always fall back on "unify behind us or we don't need you," which is clearly not a winning strategy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:32 AM

23. Sad to discard former candidates as "Retreads."

We don't need for Republicans and others to work hard to disparage our candidates- they succeed in getting some of us to do it for them.

We will be moving on to our next loss-if we don't face up to why we lose when we actually won.

In 2000 the Republicans bankrolled Ralph Nader who told us there was no difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates.

In that election cycle Putin and Russians had observed how easily we are fooled. In fact Putin did remark on our election irregularities the put G W Bush office.

In 2016, Putin and the Russians used their knowledge and intelligence to place their preferred candidate in as our president.

I don't care about the fresh-faced or or the vizened visage. If their is no in-depth knowledge and experience of the foreign affairs and economic issues, they are not ready for prime time-they are no match for the Putin's of the world.

We lost over 900 seats to Republicans over the last 8 years because we did not pay attention, The opposition doesn't sleep and dream. The build and wait; they block legislation; they block judicial appointments. Where their are small spaces between us, they create chasms.

It's not our candidates who are losers. I find the focus on 2020 to be bizarre and the search for the new thrill to be the latest attempt to lose.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:06 PM

41. Well, Clinton's age was no doubt a factor.

 

So was Dolt45's but that doesn't count when you've stacked the deck against your opponent. My point is that it's long past time to hand the reigns of control to new faces with new ideas.

Like it or not, visual impressions count! It isn't fair!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #41)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:35 PM

51. Sanders was the old one wasn't he? I guess some were afraid he'd have a stroke

and didn't vote for him in the primaries.

I found Clinton visual refreshing. finally some one visually new in Presidential politics!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #41)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:52 PM

53. I didn't get the sense that her age was factor.

And if visual impressions really counted that much, Trump wouldn't be the president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #41)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:53 PM

54. Clinton's visual impression makes her bad candidate? Germans more progressive?

Merckel, long in office, has never catered to "glamour-charisma" voter. If she loses this round does it signal German voters becoming less intelligent? or just the new anti-immigrant uprising, or the Russian election-interference in western democracies?


I agree that the many American progressives might vote on appearances rather than facts or knowledge-but sometimes we have to educate the voters rather than accept shallowness as inevitable.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #41)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 03:35 AM

108. Nonsense. She was a year younger than DT and 5 years younger than Bernie.

And she looked younger than either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:59 PM

56. +1

Poster was probably a toddler when all that went down and doesn't fully understand the magnitude of what was done to Gore. Ive run into that a lot with millenials. It's just a chapter in a history book to them, if that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #23)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:57 PM

81. The truth doesn't always work in elections, though.

 

Too many didn't care about the frivolousness of Clinton's emails compared to Dolt45's ignorance and misogyny. Those who voted for Dolt45 or who sat out the election knew which was the better candidate. They didn't care. That's why stupid and illogical things like appearance matter. This isn't a logical game.

I agree the Presidency is not something that should capture our resources for now. Far too many other avenues to address before 2020.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #1)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:39 PM

77. It's unfair that Bush won! It's unfair that trump won! MOVE ON!

Who will they give us next?

Just some food for thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to William769 (Reply #77)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:53 PM

80. I seriously thought they could not do worse than Palin. Man, was I wrong.

 

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #80)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:36 AM

128. Still, can they go lower than THIS?

by running ALEX JONES?

JOE THE (NON)PLUMBER?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:48 AM

3. Sad to be still looking for Great Male Hope Leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:03 AM

12. I would be very happy to see Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard get the nomination

but the point of my post was noting who could unite the two wings of the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:22 AM

20. I wouldn't count on Gabbard keeping her seat in congress. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oasis (Reply #20)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:32 PM

61. she has pissed off establishment by calling bullshit on regime change--that will be a positive with

voters.

People inside the beltway seem to think that everyone believes the bullshit they spew and want to kiss the same asses they do.

The rest of us have received and will receive zero benefit from destabilizing the Middle East and even Ukraine, and escalating conflict with Russia and China.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #61)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:37 PM

65. Gabbard's clumsy attempt to provide cover for Assad's chemical attack

will come back to bite her. Bigly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #61)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 09:25 PM

97. I think it time for the Human Rights push-the dictators are closing in on us.


One just installed a president in our White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:42 AM

31. Unity comes when you stop digging the trench with the shovel-weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:53 AM

34. Gabbard, the next POTUS?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:16 PM

45. Tulsi Gabbard? Hah! No Dinos please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #45)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:32 PM

62. I don't care for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:46 PM

48. Tulsi Gabbard...are you out of your friggin' mind??!!??

I hope you know you're responsible for the vomit all over my keyboard. Thanks a lot!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:40 PM

52. Tulsi Gabbard-amateurism in foreign policy? in human rights, high tolerance

for dictatorships? and you would be happy. Which "wing" of the Democratic Party is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #52)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:41 PM

68. Our government doesn't go to war over human rights, dictatorship, or even terrorism

If we did, Saudi Arabia would have been the first place we invaded after 9/11/.

You are confusing excuses and propaganda with reality.

Just because the talking heads on TV nod politely and play along when politicians spew that nonsense on TV doesn't mean all the rest of us are fooled.

Our government overthrows democratic governments that don't obey our banks and corporations and installs brutal dictators.

Please read Stephen Kinzer's OVERTHROW, John Perkins' CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HITMAN, or even Daniel Yergin's THE PRIZE, A Pulitzer Prize winning history of oil if you sincerely believe what you said, so you don't vote based just on what you hear on television.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #68)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:28 PM

76. Bill Clinton went into Yugoslavia to stop human rights abuses....so

Democrats have done so...and unlike the GOP he was successful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #76)

Fri Apr 21, 2017, 01:43 PM

111. do you stop human rights abuses using depleted uranium, backing Islamic terrorists, and leaving

a massive base along a pipeline route or the admission of a top diplomat that the war was more about enforcing neoliberal privatization than ending ethnic conflict?

Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State under U.S. President Bill Clinton and the lead U.S. negotiator during the Kosovo war. In a 2005 essay (quoted on page 415), Talbott wrote:

"As nations throughout the region sought to reform their economies, mitigate ethnic tensions, and broaden civil society, Belgrade seemed to delight in continually moving in the opposite direction. It is small wonder NATO and Yugoslavia ended up on a collision course. It was Yugoslavia's resistance to the broader trends of political and economic reform--not the plight of the Kosovar Albanians--that best explains NATO's war."


http://www.alternet.org/story/98338/naomi_klein_strikes_back_at_critics_of_her_%27shock_doctrine%27_book

And some of those human rights abuses turned out to be as fictional as Iraq's WMD's.

We stirred the pot of ethnic conflict to break Yugoslavia into pieces to make it easier to coerce the pieces to do business on terms Wall Street banks and our oil companies dictate.

Dig deeper than what you hear on TV news. They are just parroting press releases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #111)

Fri Apr 21, 2017, 04:02 PM

112. Baloney...Alternet is rewriting history...there is no question about the

massacres....my old pediatrician was from the area and told me first hand accounts. Clinton did a good thing there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #112)

Fri Apr 21, 2017, 06:56 PM

114. That wasn't Alternet, that was Naomi Klein reposted there.

She has a pretty good track record of her work holding up after her neoliberal critics excuses and lies fall apart.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #114)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 08:15 AM

116. Naomi Klein is a Clinton hater and pretty much hates the Democratic Party too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #112)

Fri Apr 21, 2017, 07:03 PM

115. which part do you dispute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #115)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 08:16 AM

117. The reason for getting involved which Bill Clinton was reluctant to do...

was the murders of innocent people...much like how people wanted something done after Syria gassed babies...Naomi Klein always ascribes the worst motives to the Clinton's and Democrats in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #117)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 01:07 PM

118. she ascribes economic motives which historically turn out to be true. It goes without saying...

Republicans use a slightly different set of excuses since it doesn't take much to get the consent of their base given their bloodlust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #118)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 05:08 PM

119. Righ,t lets think of a convoluted reason so we can find a reason to trash

a Democratic president and the party. I don't agree with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:51 PM

74. In Hawaii they are not as impressed with Gabbard's Trump friendly attitude



In Hawaii they see behind the headlines and see a Democrat that frequently sides with Trump and the reactionaries

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/17946/Tulsi-Gabbard-lsquoThe-Congresswoman-Trump-Fans-Can-Loversquo.aspx

1. The Hawaii congresswoman was also one of just 47 Democrats who voted for a bill that would make it all but impossible to admit new refugees into the United States.
2. And oddly enough, considering her state’s reliance on the tourism industry, she mirrored Trump’s overreach on immigration issues by calling for European passport holders to be forced to apply for tourist visas
3. She is also wishy-washy on gun control. Trump opposes a ban on assault weapons, aflip-flop from his prior positions; Gabbard, meanwhile, is conspicuously missing from Democrat efforts to legislate the issue. Eighty percent of Democrats, including fellow Hawaii Democrat Rep. Mark Takai, are co-sponsors of a bill that would ban so-called assault weapons—Gabbard is not among them.
4. Both Trump and Gabbard share a common friend: billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson. The Hawaii Democrat reportedly introduced an Adelson-backed bill that would outlaw online gambling. Earlier this year, Gabbard won a Champions of Freedom Award at The World Values Network’s annual gala, co-hosted by Adelson. Meanwhile, the magnate has indicated his willingness to donate more than $100 million to Trump’s campaign for president….
5. While she frequently criticized Clinton, she refused to criticize Trump. When given a chance to condemn Trump, such as with this story, Gabbard avoids the topic—and in the past, she has avoided harsh words for the Republican businessman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #74)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:36 PM

95. that's good to know if true. I'm mainly impressed by her relatively anti-war stance and

honesty about foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:16 PM

92. Warren is fine but Tulsi Gabbard is a piece of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 03:37 AM

109. Tulsi Gabbard??? She visited DT in the Trump tower

soon after the election, and afterwards came out gushing.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #3)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:16 PM

91. Its sad that you have a gender requirement at all.

I certainly don't. I'll vote for whoever I think the best candidate is and gender will NEVER be a consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #91)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 06:34 PM

120. It's interesting that supporting men is not considered a "gender requirement"

but supporting women is.

The truth is that there has been a gender requirement for the office of the presidency since its beginning. If that weren't the case, we would have had roughly 20-25 female presidents by now. But you're not at all bothered by that. What you're bothered by is a woman resenting that she will probably never live to see a woman president.

Enjoy voting for the next male politician while claiming that gender is NEVER a consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to athena (Reply #120)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 07:18 PM

121. I voted for a woman in 2016.

If a worthy candidate who happens to be a woman in 2020, I'll vote for her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #121)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 07:20 PM

123. I can guarantee you that you will be voting for a man next time,

and that you will not be the least bit bothered by the gender of your choice being no different from that of the last 45 presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:49 AM

4. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:51 AM

5. BAD IDEA!

We need new, liberal faces, preferably under the age of 60, who haven't lost national elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:54 AM

6. Your idea is valid. He was the vice president under Bill Clinton. The

two best presidents this country ever had was Bill Clinton and Obama. They made friends with practically every country and everyone loved America. Unlike the republicans. They could ask almost any country for anything and get it. I really want that again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caroldansen (Reply #6)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:37 PM

96. Best we ever had?

I think Lincoln, FDR and maybe even Washington might disagree. Teddy might disagree as well when he started reigning in corporations. And for lifetime achievement we have to give a nod to Eisenhower who was probably as liberal as Clinton.

I do agree that they are the 2 best in my 50 year lifespan although a strong argument can be made that LBJ had a more positive long term impact with the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society. Had he avoided Vietnam he would be one of he big 3.

Have a nice evening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:56 AM

7. The Al Gore that ran for President almost twenty years ago?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluedigger (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:59 PM

57. No, the Al Gore who won the Nobel Peace Prize

for environmental activism 10 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:58 AM

8. No please

He's had a chance. Someone new and fresh needed. Besides he's amassed a fortune, had a hooker scandal and a divorce since he last ran. The rebubs would have a field day

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:00 AM

10. After Donald those

Types of issues don't matter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:35 AM

24. Please advise us of the outcome of the "hooker scandal." Are you smearing?

Divorce giving Republicans a field day?....in 2020? I don't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #8)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:54 AM

35. I looked up that "hooker" scandal. It was a masseuse who claimed he assaulted her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jehop61 (Reply #8)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 03:55 AM

110. A "hooker scandal"? Just where do you think you are? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:59 AM

9. It might work if he's given up on being "nice" .




He gave in to the other side much too quickly in the Y2K Florida Selection IMO.
And that caused eight years of pain that we might never get over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:16 AM

18. Or if he hadn't sold his television station

taking away the only progressive tv station on any where in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lpbk2713 (Reply #9)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:37 AM

26. Did you want Gore to oppose the decision of the US Supreme Court?


so our candidate was at fault??? I think I am seeing a pattern here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:06 AM

13. This is a fresh approach to bash Hillary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:26 AM

22. Is that what it is?

I really want to move on:





The older I get "remember whenism" becomes more attractive but is ultimately depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #22)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:29 PM

49. I think Churchill was the right person for Britain after War was declared.


At the time he had been considered a failure--but he knew the nature of the enemy in the 1930s when others did not and got fooled. He would have been the right person to be Prime Minister in the 1930s-he had the correct world view-others didn't understand that they were already at war.

Churchill got turned out after victory and that was also the right decision-he was of the British Empire, iit was unraveling, and he was the wrong person for a war-changed England.

There are so-called progressive in the Democratic Party-both young and old-who have been very slow to recognize the changing world; slow to recognize how foreign policy and economics intersect.

While they think of themselves as "progressive" I see them as having an old world view and as being regressive in analysis and response.

Any Democrat with a view of women as an interest group whose interest are something that can be described as "women's issues" is out of touch. Any who do not see the primacy of human rights are out of touch. Any who were unprepared for the automated near-future are out-of-touch. Big Money in politics? The focus was entirely on American billionaires-like looking in the wrong end of a telescope.

I don't care if a candidate is 35 years old or 85, good looking or ugly, charismatic or unelectrifying-looking at those characteristics as priority, pivotal, or prerequisites reminds me of Bush fixing the facts around the objective to achieve an act of vengeance and revenge in which the rest of us were to pay for his ignorance, inexperience, and personal vendetta.

Our world has changed over the last decade and many progressives, who think they are cutting edge, did not know it was happening, and then have been slow to acknowledge it.

They did not learn of it in progressive journals nor on msnbc, or in university classes-because those sources are also out of touch.

We have been full of -isms, and blinded to what has been in plain sight.

The one certainty I see is that our world is going to change enormously-it will become much better or much, much worse. We will have human rights or we won't.

I see the focus on a presidential phenotype" for a 2020 victory, without building a coherent vision, a strange endeavor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #49)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:57 PM

55. Very nicely put. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 01:00 AM

105. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:38 AM

27. Yes. fifth columns are always with us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:42 AM

30. Thanks for pointing that out. It is a bit backhanded,

and I didn't see that at first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:33 PM

63. I thought the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 06:31 PM

87. so we can only have one even possible nominee ever? I could see that with FDR. Otherwise...

unless she is already the nominee in an election, you can't summarily dismiss the possibility of other candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #87)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:13 PM

90. Did I say that?

No I did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #90)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:35 PM

94. it's implied when even entertaining the idea of another possible candidate is "bashing"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #94)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 12:38 AM

100. in your world perhaps

That is not what I said.

If you want to read more into what I said than what I did - knock yourself out.

bye

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 06:33 PM

88. THAT is actually a fresh approach to bashing her. Pretending her fans are blind sycophants not...

folks who chose her because they agree with her policy positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nini (Reply #13)

Sat Apr 22, 2017, 07:21 PM

124. YES

sickening to see so many DUers use ANY EXCUSE to bash her

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:07 AM

14. The "only one" argument needs to die.

 

"Al Gore is the only candidate with credibility in both wings of the party."

And you have outlined Clinton/Sanders(or someone like him) as our only other options. Strange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:11 AM

16. Tell me...what campaign message of his particularly appealed to you?

I'm willing to bet you can't remember one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:24 AM

21. He said he was for the people, not the powerful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #16)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:37 AM

25. Lock box. Climate change. There were quite

a few. And he was for climate change decades ago when liberals were openly ridiculed about it. He endured all of that, but persisted. Not like a Senator now who promotes it now that it is a popular subject. I'm at least glad that Gore will be around to take rightful credit instead of letting someone take his spotlight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:19 AM

19. I saw that trailer in the theater, and it took my

breath away to see Gore in action again. Bush got all his Daddy's retreads, which is now just a reminder how much "progressives" work against themselves by banishing brilliant Democrats like Gore and now Clinton based on some phony talking points. We would be living in Gore's world now. Instead we got Bush's war. Doesn't sound too progressive to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:41 AM

29. Do we have to keep going back to those old Clinton-era retreads?

I like Al Gore, but he is more useful doing what he's been doing on environmental issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #29)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:59 AM

37. Experience as retreads. We don't need no stinking experience. Celebrity is what we need.


I suggest a Kardashian, proven popularity; actors are really charismatic. I don't want a character actor though.

Someone really good-looking and young would really, really, really bring out the voters, dontcha think?

....and don't let the candidate bring up too many facts in campaigning-it's a turn-off ,and makes republicans so angry they unleash their mad dog attackers.

So here are the qualifiers: pretty face if not heart throbbing good looks, handsome physique, little experience,

super charismatic, and someone who gets along with media and the Russians.

Is there anyone working for RT who might be a fit?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #37)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:06 PM

40. There are plenty of people working in the party now

who are not "celebrities" but who would bring new ideas and new energy, not the same old same old from 20+ years ago. I don't want an inexperienced, flashy celebrity type but I do want someone with a progressive vision. I see no point in continuing to nominate and run our previous losers (who will be in their '70s), even those who didn't deserve to lose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #29)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:10 PM

58. Both Hillary and Gore have had successful

post-Clinton era careers in public service. What "old Clinton era retreads" are you referring to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #58)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:13 PM

75. They should stick to those successful careers.

There are people who are starting to become successful in local progressive politics - people like Obama when he was a community organizer and then a state senator. Those are the people to watch, not the septuagenarians who may have been big cheeses twenty years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #75)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 06:48 PM

89. Would you rather have Hillary going back to being a senator

or being a Secretary of State?

Some people who were "big cheeses" 20 years ago continue to be "big cheeses" today. (I'm not quite sure what your "big cheese" standards are, but I assume that someone who received 96,000,000 votes 5 months ago should count, unless, of course, almost being a septuagenarian disqualifies her. And while our most recent nominee was Gallup's "Most Admired Woman" 20 years ago, she still holds that title today, so people must still find her message relevant.)

While it is important to watch for, to mentor, and to promote new leadership, there is also something to be said about the guidance of those with institutional expertise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #89)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 08:29 PM

93. If she wants to run for the Senate again, that's fine with me.

The people of her state can decide whether they want her to represent them. Of course there is value in experience, but she can mentor others in a lot of ways besides running for president. I'm her age, and I would like to see someone younger, with new ideas, as a leader. That goes for Bernie, too, in case you are assuming I am biased against Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #93)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 10:40 PM

98. I am one of the people of her state.

Last edited Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1)

She was a great senator, and both downstaters and upstaters supported her. I've spent many years as a volunteer. We have two wonderful Democratic senators from NY. Hillary would never try to unseat either of them.

She said in an interview last week that she would like to work on the great unfinished business of the 21st century: equality for women and girls around the world.

Like Susan B. Anthony who never got to cast a vote, Hillary will never sit in the Oval Office. She did, however, clear the path for the next qualified candidate who happens to be a woman.

And history will always wonder what could have been accomplished and who would have better off if Gore and Clinton, both winners of the popular vote, both slurred as the "lesser of two evils", had won the office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:46 AM

32. The Republican noise machine would make mince meat out of him with his own words.

They'd call him a goofball climate alarmist, and worse. They already treat him as the punchline of a joke. It would be far worse if he was running.

That's the last thing we need is another candidate who comes complete with a pre-made laundry list of things the right will hit him over the head with, and the stupid right wing voters already see him as the incarnation of Satan himself.

We can't win by repeating the same mistakes over and over, or running the same tired candidates over and over. It's time for the next generation to step up to the plate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:14 PM

44. I don't know. The rising temperatures may make him look like a savior-

The Second Coming -a beard would be good. He could take up carpentry-and no one will care if he wears earth tones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #32)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:47 PM

79. good points

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Binkie The Clown (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 01:29 AM

107. Have the republicans ever cared what liberals would think of their candidates?

Or how liberals will paint their candidates?

They are going to smear our candidates regardless - whether old or young, male or female, they will find something and swiftboat relentlessly.

It's time for us to stop giving a fk where this is concerned and fight them using their own game. On AM Joy, there was discussion about the ways republicans have sought to smear Ossof as a terrorist sympathizer - yes a terrorist sympathizer.

The republicans have lost all moral ground to pontificate about our politicians. They've nominated a shameless liar, a corrupt, intellectually lazy, compromised, inethical boor to run for president and we are still wondering how they will smear our best and brightest?

What we need to do is stop letting them define who we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:47 AM

33. Wait...in 2000 Gore was falsely painted as

"the lesser of two evils". That's how a third party candidate (with the help of the media) siphoned off enough votes to give the election to Bush.

Gore is no longer "evil"? Maybe both he and Hillary could run in the 2020 primary so we can have the opportunity to decide which of the two is the true "lesser of two evils between two lesser of two evils".

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/opinion/hillary-clinton-gets-gored.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:09 PM

42. In 2000 Republicans bankrolled Nader's run against Gore. Are they smarter than we are?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #42)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:16 PM

46. They know how to cultivate and exploit useful idiots from all sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 01:29 PM

50. 2000 should have been a turning point in a lot of ways

after the theft of the election via voter purges and the Supreme Court, Democrats should have made it harder for the "lesser of two evils" charge to stick, and once back in power, done everything they could--LOUDLY-- to stop voter disenfranchisement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lapucelle (Reply #33)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:34 PM

64. lol threadwinner lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:56 AM

36. An excellent public servant, but a poor candidate, so Not a good idea nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:02 PM

38. We can't go back in time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:11 PM

43. Call Joe Lieberman!

We're getting the band back together!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZX86 (Reply #43)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 06:25 PM

86. OK, that's the best argument against Gore--worst VP pick this side of Palin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 12:24 PM

47. O'Malley will try again. There's Warren, Franken and hopefully some young bloods will emerge

Time to move forward while gesturing fondly back towards our "should've been, and actual winners" from the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:21 PM

59. Fair or Not, Al Gore is seen as a loser.

 

However, he lost, he lost spectacularly and no one comes back from that political graveyard.

Do you have any idea how many times we will hear "He lost his own state" during a campaign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:31 PM

60. We need someone new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:39 PM

66. Unless Presidential campaigns are dramatically shortened and issues-focused, forget it.

Gore doesn't have the personality to survive it.

His best chance was in 2000 after serving as VP and representing a continuation of Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:41 PM

67. The one the far lefted labeled as no different than Bush

Last edited Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

I respect Al Gore but it's up to him whether he wants to run or not in 2020.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #67)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 02:56 PM

69. He did quite well among self-identified liberals.

2000 Exit Polls.
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2000/

6% of liberals voted for Nader, but the 81% to 13% margin among the other liberals was far better than the margin among moderates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:12 PM

70. Here is the trailer for Gore's new movie. THIS is what we could have had!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:27 PM

71. I think Howard Schultz is going to run

And he's going to surprise people by how good of a speaker he is. Going to be better than you think on the stump

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:35 PM

72. I think Dems need to move on to new faces.

If they've run before at that level they need to be retired. Biden is probably my pick of that particular litter, and even he's probably not a viable candidate, if I'm being honest.

It's time for new meat and fresh faces. No more Clinton era, or Obama era politicians, please. They did their time, let them rest while somebody else takes those body shots.



Laura

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 03:44 PM

73. That is a terrible idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 04:44 PM

78. Gore is my hero but Americans don't vote for...

Technocrats. Dukakis, Gore, Hillary, Adlai Stevenson, Dewey. All very compatent but could not rouse the passions of voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 05:12 PM

83. I could support Al Gore

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 05:23 PM

84. FUCK THOSE WHO DIDN'T SUPPORT GORE IN 2000

 

None of those fuckers are progressives. Same fucking ones who always want to lecture othErs.

kerry would have been great in 2004 and Hilary in 2016 . I'm so glad we had Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #84)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 01:03 AM

106. Word.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 05:24 PM

85. What an uninspiring choice then and now.

No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sat Apr 15, 2017, 11:41 PM

99. Too risky

I feel he would have many of the same problems Hillary had. Would be a good leader but not the best candidate. I know Gore and Hillary really won, but I would sooner run Hillary again than Gore, and I really prefer some new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 12:39 AM

101. WTF are you smoking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 12:41 AM

102. I truly LOVE Al, but I want to see someone who will be under 70 running.

Not ageism - I just think it is time for the new generation of our party to step up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 12:43 AM

103. What next we going to dig up a corpse to run. I like Al Gore, I like Hillary Clinton

and Bernie Sanders but their ship has sailed. Don't we have anyone that isn't on Medicare to run?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Apr 16, 2017, 12:49 AM

104. I used to want him to run again very very much.

But that ship has sailed and just as importantly, i dont think he wants it.

We need to expand our bench... rather than one "marquee" candidate sucking up spotlight and airtime, I'd rather have 10 lesser and semi-knowns making a name for themselves and discussing the future of our party, nation, and planet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Fri Apr 21, 2017, 04:04 PM

113. I hope he runs and others as well

I don't understand why we can't have several great candidates run in the primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 07:33 AM

127. Gore and Biden both do, but...

but they'll both be in their 70s by 2020, and their running would make it look as though the Democratic Party hasn't had a new idea, or a new generation, or a new infusion of energy for 20 years.

Even the Republicans have new blood. Granted, it's pretty hard to find people who were born in the 50s and 60s who have the mean, stale, dour ideas of the 1930s Republican Party...but somehow they're managing to do it.

Surely we can do better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Apr 23, 2017, 12:01 PM

130. He conceded too quickly for my taste.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread